Do you think the WHO's definition of health is idealistic? Why?

Question

Health is defined in WHO's Constitution as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

Answer 1

Yes, it is idealistic. Ideals are elevated in nature, and anything defined as "complete physical, mental and social well-being" is certainly idealistic. Because--even in the absence of disease, human beings are real, and function in a real and very flawed world. NOTHING is perfect--except standards which cannot be reached. Disease makes a lack of health; but a lack of disease doesn't provide an empty hole into which some politician can funnel pet projects. It's not about health. It's about politics.

No matter how one stacks the entire package, between physical, mental and social traits, there's going to be a weak link somewhere. Because everyone is good at some things, not so good at others. No one is equally endowed; and sooner or later, the weakest link is going to give. It's like when you have a car--you drive it and the tires go, fix the tires, and the brakes go; fix the brakes and the transmission goes, fix the transmission and the engine needs an overhaul. Every repair and replacement stresses the older parts.

And furthermore, this is the kind of thinking that has modern mothers putting babies in therapy and classes from dawn till dusk until they're nearly grown. It's no wonder the adults are a bundle of nerves with one finger on their own pulse, an eye on the scale, watching their salt, sugar, fat, and designer water consumption. It's a new twist on Thoreau's " ...mass of men leading lives of quiet desperation."

When Socrates talked about an unexamined life not being worth living, he was not talking about today's obsession with self.

So I, in fact, thoroughly dislike WHO's definition of health. Just because they have arbitrarily set the bar where they chose, actual health is what it is, regardless of some corporate pronouncement. And I, for one, resent the concept that I am a bug on a pin for the statistical voyeurism of some bunch of self-important politico-bigwig fat cats in the World Health Organization beating their chests like Gorillas and trying to get their names added to the annals of time by orchestrating some hot air pronouncement that means nothing but money in the pocket of some corporation somewhere.

Answer 2

No because it is important to take into account all issues that impact the quality of life for individuals. Just because someone is disease free does not mean they are healthy. Mental and social issues impact physical health and should be addressed by WHO.